Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
SHOW
STATION
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
MSNBC
Nov 14, 2012 1:00pm PST
blame game that drew the president's ire, defending susan rice after comments by republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham that they would oppose her nomination to be secretary of state based on remarks she made about the benghazi attacks. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmerch her reputation is outrageous. >> indeed. let's get to our panel julian epstein, lynn sweet, washington bureau sweet for chicago "sun-times" and msnbc political analyst professor michael eric dyson of georgetown university. professor dyson,fy might begin with you, perhaps the most hated moment in that press conference was the president's barely concealed anger that republicans have been attacking ambassador susan rice for the confusion surrounding the benghazi consulate attacks. this, as you know, has been the drum beat from republicans from the right wing media for
MSNBC
Nov 16, 2012 1:00pm PST
the whole white house. take a listen. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated and -- fully documented intelligence that the intelligence community had, that's not true. >> last night the message was that susan rice was disseminating incorrect intelligence and the president is wrong for defending her. now here is mr. king today after an intelligence briefing. >> did he seem concerned that things had been changed? was that surprising to you? >> he seemed to say at the time they didn't realize the full significance of that and that or an unclassified statement it was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. >> petraeus told king today that, quote, for an unclassified statement this was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. dana, to paraphrase the president, republicans got out in front of their own skis on this one, didn't they? >> yes. well, in congress they have a tradition of revising and extending their remarks and i think peter king -- what peter king just said was "never mind." >> what he said earlier, what do we do wit
MSNBC
Nov 15, 2012 1:00pm PST
indignation and umbrage that susan rice is being rhetorically bruted about here by john mccain and lindsey graham and other republicans who have come out harshly against her in that appearance she made on "meet the press" and elsewhere days after the september 11th attacks because she was by the cia's own admission relaying the information, the latest intelligence, as provided by the cia. many people obviously have problems with the way this went down, with the way information was disseminated, and that's still being hashed out and it will continue to be hashed out when we're likely to see the former director of cia, david petraeus, on the hill behind closed doors. whether or not they actually go through with the susan rice nomination to succeed hillary clinton, we don't know at this point. i certainly think that they would not shy away from the fight if they thought that susan rice was the best person for that nomination. >> did you not get the impression yesterday, mike, that that was the implication of the president's assertion that he really does want to appoint her and he will push it
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)